The survey investigated the organization and time allocation
of daily activities and the division of labour within the
household by gender and age, and attempted to assess changes that
had taken place in the households over the past ten years.

As the organization of household hours and tasks was
inevitably linked to plantation activities, domestic duties had
to be organized around the plantation work, which had assumed a
central position in the lives of the workers. This represented a
major shift from the focus of the household as the centre of
society that prevailed in the pre-colonial era, even in
contemporary rural areas.

In order to fit in the essential household activities, the
women, whether married or unmarried, had "to make the day
longer" by getting up very early, often as early as 4 a.m.
Breakfast and lunch had to be cooked and child care organized in
the early morning before setting off for work on the plantation.
Half the domestic chores were done before 6.30 in the morning.
The other half were done after four in the afternoon or even
later during the peak picking season. The day was made to stretch
until eleven at night in order to fit everything in. The best
hours were devoted to plantation work; household responsibilities
were relegated to the periphery of the workers' lives. The women,
especially those with young children, were badly affected by this
15- to 18-hour day.

Of course the male respondents did not have this problem, as
their wives took the burden of housework upon themselves. The
married men whose wives lived with them devoted their time to
themselves before going to work at 7 a. m. They went to bed
earlier and got up later than the employed women respondents.
Here, as in the peri-urban sector, the non-employed wives of
working men had begun to acquire the characteristics of a Western
housewife. Their task was to care for the children and the house,
a much narrower role than that of their rural counterparts. The
pattern of the single men's lives was observed to be closer to
that of the women, in both the similarity and timing of domestic
tasks. The phenomenon of a man living alone, apart from his
family, was a legacy of colonialism particularly evident among
the migrants on the plantations.

Questions about assistance with household tasks inevitably
raised gender and age issues. Men who lived with their wives
believed they had the option to help or not. When they did
assist, which was indeed rare, they chose the type of tasks they
did. Work in the household increased with the number of small
children. However, the workload was lightened as they got older,
especially when they were girls. Preadolescent children helped in
the house, assuming responsibilities sometimes more on the basis
of age than gender. The children's help ranged from small tasks
like washing their own dishes to minding younger siblings all day
or taking full charge of the household. However, as time went on
the boys rebelled against this, and older boys asserted that they
were above such duties, pointing to the traditional patriarchal
division of labour by gender as their justification. In the
female-headed households, adolescent and older boys began to
assume the role of household head. Some female heads of household
said the responsibility was too much for one parent. Others
declared that the absence of a husband was a blessing, as there
was no man in the house to disrupt household work with demands
for attention. Some of the female respondents liked the peace in
the house when there was no husband there.

Many respondents regarded household activities as work because
of the time and energy involved, but others perceived it as
necessary to life and not wage-earning and therefore
"non-work." In any case, the hours suggested that
household activities should be taken into account when labour is
being quantified.

Sickness was a great risk or threat to the employed woman with
children. Should she fall sick, the organization of her household
would disintegrate. When others were ill she had to look after
them, draining her time and energy to carry out all her other
duties. The married men said they had no difficulties here, since
the household was the wife's sphere and therefore it was her
responsibility to care for the sick. Maternity leave was cited as
a recent new benefit for women. Permanent employees on the coffee
plantation got two months with pay, but casuals got nothing. Some
of the permanent workers said that the two months were inadequate
and they would prefer to be able to take as long as they deemed
necessary, like the casual workers. However, the casual employees
envied the security of tenure which the others had. One
respondent had lost her permanent status because she refused to
go back to work after two months, preferring to take care of her
infant twins. Her next birth was also twins, whom she took time
to breast-feed. She was married and had the back-up of her
husband's wages; had she been the head of the household, she
would not have had any alternative but to conform to regulations.

In the tea region maternity leave ranged from 23 to 90 days.
However, there were discrepancies in payment: some respondents
stated that they were given full pay, but others declared that
only half of their wages were paid to them during maternity
leave, while yet others said that they received no wages at all
during this time. There was a similar confusion about maternity
expenses, which could be financed by the worker, the employer,
the welfare club, or the union. As with other employed women, the
length of maternity leave and financial security during it could
have a significant impact on the health of the baby and the
mother, as well as on her decision to have more children.

Babies were breast-fed surreptitiously in the workplace; no
time was officially allowed for this essential activity. The
health of the infant was thus jeopardized by exposure to extreme
temperatures, inclement weather, and pesticides. Some of the
respondents said that women who attended to their children in the
field risked being fired. Others said that some supervisors were
willing to look the other way when mothers took breaks to see to
their children. Older siblings sometimes had to leave school to
look after the younger ones. The traditional support systems were
not available for the plantation workers, although some did turn
to their rural extended families for help. Sick leave, leave to
care for children who were ill, and compassionate Ieave were all
granted without pay, so income stopped when the worker needed it
most. Mothers and female heads of household were particularly
vulnerable.

On Nyakinyua, the company provided free nursery schooling, a
policy as commendable as it was rare, since many other
plantations did not provide any educational facilities. The
children were not necessarily sent to nursery schools to learn,
but they were considered an important alternative form of early
child care for employed mothers. Many respondents sent their
children to nursery school when they were three years old
"since there is no one else to mind her" and it was
better for the children to spend the day there rather than locked
up in the house or unsupervised on the plantation.

The absence of an extended family to help with child care
presented real problems to the working mothers. As most had come
to the plantations expressly to seek employment and as the
management declared its reliance on female workers as a stable
workforce, the provision of child care would have seemed logical.
As it was, many respondents had one person and, in a few cases,
two adults, in the camp to whom they could entrust their children
for an extended period.

The women, children, and a few of the men said alienation from
the children was the major problem when it came to the division
of time between the household and the plantation. This was
expressed in various ways by different respondents, but it was
always a matter of strong feelings. Lack of time to care for
children, especially when they were ill, inadequate time for food
preparation, older children having to take responsibility for
younger siblings, and young children having to stay on their own
the whole day were frequent complaints. Although the unit of
production and the unit of reproduction were interdependent,
their physical separation created stress and difficulties which
exacerbated the problems arising from the traditional division of
labour within the household.

As any stimuli that affect any part of a unit can have an
impact on all the other components, the exploitation of the
workers also imposed strains on the children, who had to aid
household adjustment by contributing to work in an attempt to
ease the burdens of their mothers; the plantations thus benefit
indirectly from their labour. Yet the presence of children gave
comfort and cohesion to parents, who in spite of the wretchedness
of their own lives were not generally so pessimistic about their
children's future.

Conditions on the plantation may actually hamper intellectual
development. The children's progress and promotion in school was
slow. They were often quite old for their class: there were some
who were finishing primary school in their late teens. Most
children dropped out after primary school because their parents
could not afford secondary education for them. This usually meant
that they then remained dependent on their families.

There was a unique though slight generation gap on the
plantation: it was difficult to find young people between 18 and
24. The company was said to take advantage of the slightest
reason to throw them out of the camps. Apart from this, they
became a burden on the household and were encouraged to get jobs
in other places at an early age.

There were marked strains between the young and the old. The
whole situation was confusing, but what seemed to be spontaneous
eruptions of tensions may have been sparked off by economic
stress. The fact that parents did not control the means of
production, were illiterate or semi-literate, and were themselves
exploited eroded their authority over their children. They saw
the children as indolent, cheeky and difficult to control, and
lacking respect for the old. This lack of respect reflected the
loss of communal traditions that emphasized the wisdom and
philosophy of the elders. To the older cohort, there seemed to be
a breakdown of values as young men cohabited with or married
older women. Some workers perceived themselves as a generation
isolated in an unmanageable environment over which they had no
control. The young were full of enthusiasm and energy and hope
for a better life.

There was general consensus that there had been great changes
in the relationships between children and parents, though no
group of respondents stood out as representing a majority view of
the precise nature of the change. The responses were evenly
divided between various opinions, such as: parents were freer
with children; parents were not strict with children; parents
wanted more education for their children; parents were unable to
control their children; parents educated their daughters more
nowadays; children spent more time studying; parents spent less
time with their children; and children were more educated than
their parents. Of course, it should be noted that many of these
behavioural changes are common to other groups in contemporary
Kenya.

The issue of changing attitudes to male and female roles
elicited an array of responses which indeed reflect changes.
These ranged from seeing boys and girls as equal in the home;
acknowledging that equality between men and women is possible
because they perform the same jobs on the plantation and earn
equal money; to "women have their roles and position cut out
for them by God and cannot in any way change this as even God
himself is also a man." Gender discrimination was even more
constant and manifest in the division of household labour than in
technical employment and factory work. However, it was more than
a question of psychological insensitivity or low levels of
consciousness within households. It was also one of deep and
long-standing exploitation.

Migration, Employment, and Income

The plantations were dependent on migration. Their workers
could be divided into three categories of origin: those who were
born on the plantation; those who were born in the same province
and therefore did not have to go far to join the plantation
labour force; and those who were born in other provinces and had
to move long distances to either the tea or coffee plantations.
Three of the country's seven provinces - Nyanza, Central, and
Western - provide nearly all the plantation workforce. None of
the respondents came from the eighth province, which is Nairobi.

The non-migrant workers in the first category were second- or
third-generation plantation workers. These respondents said their
forbears had been affected by the land policies of the colonial
government, which had simultaneousIy created huge plantation
areas on the one hand and a landless population on the other.
This group included young and old, women and men; there were more
of them in the coffee region than on the lea plantations.

The workers in the second category had migrated because they
had no land. Here there was also a gender component, as this
group included many of the female heads of households who had
been driven from Central Province by the patriarchal inheritance
system. The men had been the victims of land alienation. In the
Western region, there were some respondents who had migrated
because of poor, unproductive soil. Some migrants still had small
pieces of land where their extended family lived and there were
others who had managed, after years of labour, to purchase a
small plot. Most were destined to be the parents of
second-generation plantation workers.

The third category consisted of those who had come from other
provinces, mainly to sell their labour in order to supplement
their family income in other rural areas. This represented a
pattern which has persisted since the colonial era. The men in
this group had little in the way of land or resources at home.
The women were pushed there by the combination of land poverty
and patrilineal disinheritance by fathers or husbands. It is this
last factor which has led to one of the most profound changes in
Kenyan households, the female-headed household, which was as
visible on the plantation as in urban centres large and small.

The patterns of migration tended to differ between the men and
the women in categories two and three. The men generally left
their home or place of origin in search of employment, a practice
which they continued. Some of the women left home to join the
workforce, but the majority passed through one or more marriages
before they got to the plantation. Some were wives who followed
husbands who had already migrated to the plantations, but many
others came to the plantation as a refuge from broken marriages
and husbands who no longer wanted them. Some who had not been
married sought employment and a place to live with their
children. Most respondents came to the plantation because they
had no resources and hoped to meet their economic needs by
joining the workforce there. Some had migrated to escape a
criminal past, family disputes, the ill-will of neighbours, or
witchcraft. A few had come in an attempt to leave or forget a
tragic past. However, land problems were the major impetus for
migration.

Some of the respondents, most of them male, had passed through
a number of other plantations, or held various kinds of unskilled
or semi-skilled jobs in small towns and cities. Once the women
found a job and a home for their family they were inclined to
settle permanently on the plantation and were therefore
recognized by the management as the more stable part of the
workforce. The men moved in and out more freely, untethered by
immediate family responsibilities. Women usually had nowhere else
to go. The plantation offered these landless heads of households
a livelihood and a place to stay and the employers benefited from
their lack of choice.

When asked where they would go if their present job were
suddenly terminated, many of the women said they would look for a
job on another plantation. Few of those in the coffee region saw
any possibility of returning to the rural areas. Though some had
extended family there, they said it would be
"impossible" to go and live with them, since land and
money were so scarce. Besides, their patrilineal cultures forbade
the women to return to their natal home with children, especially
male children. Most of these respondents had no land themselves,
apart from the few who had managed to buy an acre or two on which
they hoped to build if they could save enough for the building
materials.

Most respondents had no intention of working on the plantation
for the rest of their lives. The plantation, like the city, was
seen as a temporary place to work and live, where conditions were
so difficult that they were comparable to slavery. Those who said
they would stay there made it obvious that this was because they
had no alternatives. All except a handful declared that working
on a plantation was a miserable life, oppressive and
exploitative. The workload was too heavy and the pay too little
even to cover basic needs. The few whose views were less negative
simply said their jobs gave them some income.

Aspirations for their children were unanimously oriented
"away from the plantation." All the respondents wanted
their children to live, in order of preference, in the rural
area, in a big city, or in a small town. None of them wanted
their children to live on the plantation, and some were outright
in their aversion to this. The predominant hope was for land to
settle down on in the country or stable employment in the towns
or city. For themselves, nearly all the respondents wanted a
piece of land they could call their own so they could control
their working hours and reap the benefits of their own work. Some
of the younger respondents were attracted to the big city. Others
realized they would have nowhere else to go if they had to leave
the plantation. All in all, the research revealed the plantation
workers as a people who, though deracinated from their rural
areas, would prefer to settle back there or in the towns. The
plantation was merely a place of economic survival.

It was therefore essential to explore various factors relevant
to this, including schooling and training, employment history,
work schedules, and income. The educational levels of the
respondents were low. Occasionally someone had advanced as far as
high school, but this was indeed rare. Some (36 per cent) had no
formal education at all, many had only lower primary and a few
had upper primary schooling. Most of the more educated
respondents had left school at unusually high ages. Many were in
upper primary school in their late teens.

The same constraints which confined other Kenyans to low
educational levels also operated here. These included lack of
financial resources in the family (37.4 per cent), the need to
work in order to support younger siblings, forced marriage, and
teenage pregnancy. Many of the respondents stated that they had
liked school very much, and quite a number of them had done well
academically during their time there. Almost without exception
they considered their education had not been completed.

Gender discrimination in educational opportunity certainly
existed, though it was mostly expressed by the female
respondents. Most men did not seem to perceive it. The women were
often very bitter about discrimination against them as daughters
and sisters. Some said that they had excelled in class and felt
that given the opportunity they would have gone far. This gender
bias was exacerbated by poverty, which had forced many parents to
choose between which children they could put through school.

School was perceived as necessary and as a key to better job
opportunities by 68.6 per cent of the sample. Yet most of them
had only learnt rudimentary reading, writing, and arithmetic. The
older women lacked even this basic literacy and numeracy, though
some had attempted to rectify this by attending adult literacy
classes. Over and over again, their limited educational
background and lack of rural resources like land or cattle were
given as the major factor in the respondents' decision to work on
the plantation. The vast majority of them had unskilled or
semi-skilled jobs.

A few respondents had picked up some skills, mainly in
informal ways, in odd places here and there. Some were mechanics,
some could sew. However, the vast majority, regardless of gender
and age, had never had any type of training, formal or informal.
Their only marketable skill was tea- or coffee-picking, which
they had learnt on the job.

It was surprising to find that some of the respondents with
specific skills were employed as unskilled workers. There were
carpenters, cobblers, drivers, painters, bookkeepers, typists,
and dressmakers who were all overqualified for picking tea leaves
or coffee berries. Here the survey was inadequate, as it did not
include a follow-up question on why these respondents were not
employed or self-employed in the herds in which they were
trained. Lack of opportunities in specific areas and the
inability to raise the capital necessary to set up in
self-employment may have been major constraints.

The employment histories showed gender differentiation which
was consistent with the patterns of migration. Men had taken jobs
earlier than the female respondents, some of whom had been
married first and only joined the labour force after the marriage
had broken up, often in their mid-thirties. An older cadre of
female respondents had joined the workforce in their late forties
and fifties after their mothering role had diminished.

Most of the respondents (61.7 per cent), regardless of gender
or age, did not like their present work or would prefer any other
kind of job. When they were asked about this, some of them
thought the question was either ridiculous or cynical, as
conditions on the plantation made the answer so obvious. Those
who said they liked their jobs did so with stoical resignation.
Preferences for other work ranged from unskilled jobs like office
cleaner to skilled work like tailoring and mechanics. Many said
that anything which was not as demanding as plantation work would
be all right. Some wanted their own farms.

Questions about labour contracts aroused bitter responses, as
casual workers were employed by verbal agreement and could be
dismissed on the spot. Permanent employees had a written
contract, but most of the respondents assumed that they were in
the position of the casual employee. It was not clear how they
acquired permanent status. It seemed to be based on some sort of
managerial preference. There were some cases of workers who had
been born on the plantation but were still working on casual
terms, which kept the entire household in a precarious situation.

In the coffee region everyone felt insecure; the respondents
said that if their jobs were terminated their families would
starve and have no roof over their heads. This was a general
anxiety with no significant difference according to gender or
age. Men and women, young and old, felt forced to remain on the
plantation so they could provide for the basic needs of their
families. However, some of the men and married women on the tea
plantations said that if they lost their jobs they would return
to the rural areas where they had some land or relatives.

Responses to questions about the problems encountered in the
workplace varied according to gender, age, and class. Young women
generally experienced the greatest difficulties, as they
struggled to balance and cope with their responsibilities as
mothers, wives, wage-earners and, at times, heads of household.
Whether single or married, their work left them exhausted and
ill-prepared for the next day. At peak season their ability to
carry out domestic work was often reduced to a minimum or even to
zero. Where there were older children in the family they were
sometimes put in charge of the household; occasionally husbands
who had regular shift work assisted with the care of children in
the evening, though the mother still had to do the heavier chores
when she came home from work. The older women felt the physical
strains of plantation work more and more as their strength ebbed
with age. Some women said they had been victimized by supervisors
to whom they refused sexual favours.

One of the central foci of this research was the interaction
between the household, the unit of co-residence and reproduction,
and the plantation, the unit of production. The compatibility of
work schedules and domestic demands was therefore a fundamental
question.

The poor living and working conditions and the inadequate
wages were clear indications of the failure of collective
bargaining. The Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers' Union
has been a weak and incompetent guardian of the workers'
interests. In sharp contrast to the active part the trade unions
played in the struggle against colonialism, its current role
seemed to be to pacify the workers. This was perhaps inevitable
because the union officials were co-opted by the management and
imposed on the workers, which meant that they lacked commitment
to union ideals and obligations. There seemed to be a covert
alliance between the union and the management against the
workers. As one of the women said: "The trade union in the
plantation is dormant and useless. They have not had cases like
we hear of other unions. . . . Their major concerns have been to
have workers as members and telling us to be loyal to the
employer." The level of participation had actually dropped
and the workers no longer understood the role of the union; most
of the respondents thought it should be abolished. Some called
for government intervention to revitalize the union but others
saw the government as a passive observer in the struggle between
labour and capital. One respondent felt there was an urgent need
"to get someone who is more learned and powerful and cannot
be bribed. The union leaders here are corrupt and semi-literate.
The government should also give us a free forum where we can
challenge these 'Boers' without intimidation at all."

The study also looked at individual wages and, where
applicable, combined wages, income from informal activities,
savings and expenditure, employment benefits, statutory
deductions, remittances, and credit facilities. The economic base
of the plantation worker was the income from her or his wages,
augmented during peak season by money for extra hours worked at
triple the normal rate. Yet these did not cover all their basic
needs on either the tea or coffee plantations. Their food was low
in quality and quantity, their children dressed in tatters, and
even the very precious hope of education to provide a better life
for the next generation often came to nought when they could not
meet school fees. Apart from cigarettes and alcohol, there were
no luxuries for the men. There were none at all for the women. In
other words, their work did not even bring them those things for
which they had entered the labour force.

Indeed, many respondents, men and women, had to supplement
their wages by petty trading in surplus vegetables (where growing
them was not forbidden in monocrop areas) or making and selling
handicrafts like mats, kiondo (basket-ware), sweaters, or
tablecloths. Others, like mothers with young families, had no
time available for these activities and so no way to supplement
their income. Those who did were asked whether or not these
activities affected their jobs. The responses suggested that it
was rather the excessively heavy work and long hours on the
plantation that impaired their ability to attend to other things.
Those who engaged in extra income-generating activities said they
were often so exhausted after their plantation work that they
could not see to these activities although they were essential to
the household.

The extended household in the rural area also suffered, as
there was little to be sent back to the wives, children, and
parents there. Though respondents wanted to maintain their
kinship ties and obligations, their support was gradually
becoming confined to the nuclear households because their income
was so meagre. Remittances to the rural areas were therefore
rare.

Those remittances that were met on a regular basis revealed
rural linkages which were not easily perceived at first. They
also indicated new patterns of rural dependence on external
economic support and a hidden extended family structure that was
persisting although the respondent lived in a nuclear household
on a plantation. There was a long history of male migrants
sending money back to the wives and children left in the rural
areas. The remittances women sent to rural extended families not
only showed that they were recognized as having an economic base,
however slight, of their own, but sometimes reversed old patterns
of female-male dependence as they supported their mothers and
even stepmothers, thus shouldering responsibilities normally
assigned to their fathers and brothers. Sometimes they actually
supported male relatives as well. The remittances to the rural
areas often prevented the workers saving, but it was clear that
they were regarded as necessary and not to be put off or ignored.
Perhaps they were considered a form of social insurance and
security in a precarious situation. Certainly, participation in
the workforce would not provide this in old age. The workers'
entitlement to be housed ended with their employment. There was
said to be a pension scheme available to permanent employees,
though this did not come up in the study, as workers who had
retired were not included in the survey.

Economic difficulties had led to the creation of credit
agencies, which were also agents of poverty. Shops, bars,
butcheries, posh mills, and maize stores sold to the
workers on credit and recovered the debt through the management
each payday. The existing co-operative union served only the
senior staff. Although the tea-pickers felt they also needed a
co-operative, they lacked the necessary capital and managerial
skills. In any case, it was thought that the company would
probably not have allowed one to operate, as it seemed to repress
any form of organization which might be used against it.

The workers lent each other money in times of crisis, and
debts were a common cause of friction among the workers. Money
also caused much household tension, though where the workers
shared houses the major cause of dissension was always the use of
personal effects without consent. The extended family still
played an important role in resolving household conflicts. There
were also "money sharks" on the plantation who cashed
in on the squalid situation, but at an interest rate of 50 per
cent the cost of loans from the private sources was prohibitive,
and so this source was mainly called on only to meet heavy
expenditure such as school fees or emergencies. This dependence
on strangers who were not kin was creating new patterns of
relationships and interdependence.

If repaying small loans to private individuals or loan sharks
was difficult, borrowing from banks, government agencies, and
other formal financial institutions was impossible for young and
old, male and female: the workers had neither property nor
sufficient security of tenure against which to borrow. Their only
assured source of credit was an advance or short-term loan from
their employers, church leaders, or nyaparas
(supervisors).

On the coffee plantations it was rare to find other family
members contributing to household income, since most of the
families were nuclear and there was only one working adult.
Female-headed households in particular had to survive on the one
income, as did many households with very young families when the
need for intensive child care prevented much informal economic
activity. A couple of the female respondents said that "men
friends" who came and lived with them for brief periods
contributed to household income. This situation, in which the
woman was the more permanent occupant of the house, was quite
alien to the traditional patriarchal social system.

In most cases, even the combined income from wages, extra
cash-generating activities, and contributions from other sources
still did not cover essential expenditure on food, clothing, and
education. It was surprisingly easy to break down monthly
household expenditure, as most respondents knew how much money
they spent on various items, partly because wages were paid
fortnightly and partly because purchases were few, basic, and
recurrent. The heavy expense of school fees was often met by
borrowing. Although this was mainly for their own children, many
respondents had to support brothers and sisters still in school.

Expenditure on clothing was irregular and infrequent, even for
small children. Compulsory school uniforms accounted for much of
this. Clothing was bought twice or thrice a year, mostly during
the peak season when extra money was available. Many respondents
also had to buy clothing for mothers, fathers, wives, and
children in the rural areas. In the coffee region this sometimes
intermittent form of remittance was one of the few manifestations
of extended family exchange and maintenance.

It was impossible for many of the respondents to accumulate
any savings. Those who did so in the coffee region had several
alternatives for their deposits: the post office savings bank,
keeping them at home, or joining a women's welfare savings group.
Banks and co-operatives were beyond their reach. The amounts
saved were small. Things were slightly different in the tea
region, where some workers had invested in livestock to cover
school fees: one respondent said that his bank was a goat and a
cow. Another respondent said that she wanted to save Ksh50
(US$3.30) per month, but so far had been unable to do so.

In some cases a women's group which functioned as a savings
circle had enabled some of the respondents to buy property, which
they would never have been able to do otherwise. Women spoke of
having purchased, or intending to purchase, a building
co-operatively, either as part of a women's group or with their
families. Some had plans to acquire some land either Individually
or with others. This struggle to acquire an economic base
collectively replicated a pattern all over the country, for
consciousness of the new power of women's groups had penetrated
even the plantation enclave. Though the groups were few there,
their goals and achievements were similar to those in rural and
pert-urban Kenya. However, those on the plantations were
different in that their membership reflected the diverse ethnic
origins of the plantation workers. Male respondents saved
individually, when they had something to save. There was no sign
of group savings among them, which also corresponds to patterns
in the rural and pert-urban areas.